Of Zombies and Morality

[Tadashi]

I think we're starting to narrow it down now, here's to that! Unfortunately I don't really know how to move the discussion forward. You have the notion that I need a right to interfere (for lack of better words), and I don't. Hmm, this is a hard one. Right now I kind of wish I wasn't the only one here thinking like this, usually other people can jump in and fill in the gaps. But I'll just have to think on this one for now.

On 'moral relativist'. Right now I would like to wrap my head around other stuff, 'moral relativist' will have to wait.

I think it'll be difficult to move the discussion forward if we don't have the same definition of what a 'moral relativist' is. So, when you have time to wrap your head around it, let me know. We'll compare our notes to see if we're on the same page, and go from there...

(you don't seem as busy as you insist! are you getting addicted to interfaith? then you're one of us now, and we'll never let you go!)

Well, actually, my business trips (there are two in a row) got moved forward for a few days, that gave me a little extra time... but I'm gonna be really busy from tomorrow... But yes, I'm addicted to Internet forums , so my hands start shaking if I'm away from it too long! It's a disease!! lol...

I'll give you all a nice break from 'Tad' for a while now. Don't miss me too much! haha...


Tad

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

I think it'll be difficult to move the discussion forward if we don't have the same definition of what a 'moral relativist' is. So, when you have time to wrap your head around it, let me know. We'll compare our notes to see if we're on the same page, and go from there...

But I don't understand why 'moral relativist' needs to be involved? You asked me about my views and I'm trying to explain them. Again, I'm explaining MY perspective, nothing else.

 

[Gordian Knot]

Tea, if I may be sol bold, here is my interpretation of what I believe you are attempting to put across.

Your words "I don't have a right to intervene, because there is no right. I have the opinion that I should."

My take:
Your 'right' to intervene would be analogous to having an authority to intervene. Which you do not believe you have. Your 'opinion' that you should intervene is a belief that it is a greater moral wrong to allow a man to beat his wife than it is morally wrong to allow him to do so.

Moral relativism, by its very nature, means that morals are subjective. Just because they are subjective does not mean that no one can not interfere with another. Because it is subjective, a person can choose that in some situations, particularly when harm is being done to another living being, to put their own (subjective) opinion above the other persons and act on it.

I would suggest that moral relativism and subjectivity is a sliding scale that most of us make up in our minds. When the action is below the tipping point, one will not interfere in another's right to their own moral scale. When it goes beyond the tipping point, a person may choose to put their moral scale above anothers.

That this opens up a huge can of (very moral) worms is the end result that we pay.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Well done G! I stand behind every word!

 

[Tadashi]

But I don't understand why 'moral relativist' needs to be involved?

But I thought this whole conversation started because you asked me:

"Could you elaborate on moral relativism, in your own words, and tell me why it doesn't make sense." (P2 #16)

How can I explain moral relativism without involving how a moral relativist would act? I now think we may not even be on the same page as to what the point of this discussion is. I think we may have gotten tangled in the web of semantics. Let me see if I can untangle us. But I don't have time for it now, so when I get back from my trips, we'll talk more.


Tad

 

[Tadashi]

I don't have a right to intervene, because there is no right. I have the opinion that I should.

Also, let me rephrase what I said earlier toward the above statement of yours. (I now realized I made a bad typo in my statement...)

Why do you think 'your opinion' should authorize you to intervene, trampling the others' (in this case, the couple) equally entitled opinions, where it should not concern you (no harm is being done to you)?

If anyone's opinion of 'what's morally right' is always 'subjective', how do you determine your 'subjectivity' is more correct than that of others, not only to you, but also to others?


Tad

 

[Tadashi]

I would suggest that moral relativism and subjectivity is a sliding scale that most of us make up in our minds. When the action is below the tipping point, one will not interfere in another's right to their own moral scale. When it goes beyond the tipping point, a person may choose to put their moral scale above anothers.

So, you're saying here, there's a tipping point where your 'subjective' moral values become justifiably 'enforceable' onto others, right? One example is "no harm should be done to a living being."

What if I said that I'm characterizing (well, not only me, many thinkers both secular and religious) the morality of "no harm should be done to a living being" as 'objective morality'?? And again, this concept is not exclusively religious as some notable atheists support it.

How about 'moral realism' then? Do you consider yourself a moral realist? (I do.)

-- from wikipedia --
(emphasis mine)

Moral realism stands in opposition to all forms of moral anti-realism and moral skepticism. Moral skepticism is a class of metaethical theories all members of which entail that no one has any moral knowledge. Many moral skeptics also make the stronger, modal, claim that moral knowledge is impossible. Moral skepticism is particularly opposed to moral realism: the view that there are knowable, objective moral truths.

One study found that 56% of philosophers accept or lean towards moral realism (28%: anti-realism; 16%: other). Some notable examples of robust moral realists include David Brink, John McDowell, Peter Railton, Geoffrey Sayre-McCord, Michael Smith, Terence Cuneo, Russ Shafer-Landau, G.E. Moore, John Finnis, Richard Boyd, Ayn Rand, Sam Harris, Nicholas Sturgeon, Thomas Nagel, Derek Parfit.


BTW, I'm using the term 'objective morality' in the same way as 'objective moral truths'.

Now, I really gotta go... Let's talk more when I get back.


Tad

 

[Gordian Knot]

So, you're saying here, there's a tipping point where your 'subjective' moral values become justifiably 'enforceable' onto others, right? One example is "no harm should be done to a living being."

That is precisely what I am saying. And I have to add that this is not necessarily a good thing to do. The tipping point is completely subjective and people can use it for evil.

Like the old guy here in Florida who got into an argument with a younger guy at the movie theater. The younger guy threw his popcorn at the older guy. The older guy pulled out his gun and shot the younger guy dead.

Why did he do that? His tipping point must revolve around the concept that being disrespected entitled him to use deadly force.

It is why I choose my tipping points very carefully. I know how easy it is to go overboard.

As to moral realism, it sounds promising but I will need to do some further research on what the definition is. Will get back to you on that one.

 

[Zinga]

They've already been set in stone, they're called the 10 Commandments ...
Our laws are based on morals & ethics; they can be legally enforced unlike the 10 Commandments ...
Unfortunately, its not against the law to act like an a**hole ... Boooo!

According to Dan Story in "Defending Your Faith", a universal standard of behavior exists in all people, regardless of their culture, religion or period in history ...

In the series, "The Walking Dead" the brain chemistry of the living has changed to "survival mode" due to the constant threat of death ...
Their reactions come instanteously ...
It could be said their decisions are preconceived since the threat of death is pervasive and the purpose of "survival mode" is to protect one's life at all costs ...
This is one is tricky to understand, "survival mode" does not adversely effect one's morals & ethics - they remain intact ...
Zen mode or "everyday mode" does not activate one's animal instincts to survive such ordeals ...
From the little I've watched, the living seem to have a purdy good handle on their morals & ethics ...
They squabble about the best care & interests of others in their group as well as for themself, however, it still comes down to surviving ...
What makes the killing okay is that they are killing zombies, not living "people" ...

One big issue I see often w/the 10 Commandments is many interpret them literally - black & white w/no room to consider circumstances that would justify breaking a few of them ...
If my life &/or that of my family was being threatened, I would lie, steal, cheat & possibly kill to protect us ...
I'm certain by that time I would have already been set in survival mode ...
I'm not certain I would or could kill, however its a great possibility - I hope to never be tested on it ...
If I were standing on the shoulder of a road & a careless driver caused me to fear for my life, I wouldn't chase after the motorist to throw a crowbar through the back window or force him/her off the road then lie to a police officer about it ...
JMHO ~ ​